university of alaska board of regents transformation...2. in response, the bor audit committee...

University of AlaskaBoard of Regents

Report on Preliminary Reviewof

Options for University Transformation

June 4-5, 2020

Overview1. The university is facing a serious fiscal gap as a result of reduced state

funding, declining enrollment/tuition, and the COVID pandemic

2. In response, the BOR Audit Committee directed the president to oversee an expedited, consultative review process of options for university transformation, for consideration by the Board June 4

3. Numerous options were suggested for preliminary review; given the short period of time available, a small number were selected

4. The preliminary reviews were conducted by appropriate UA councils (Academic Council, Business Council, Executive Council) and included input from shared governance

5. The reviews suggest a variety of options for the Board; those with potentially large cost savings being the most challenging to implement

2







3

State funding is down through FY22 and could fall even more

?FUTURE

● State

economy in

decline

● State

revenues in

decline

● State funding

at risk

● COVID

impact

$378 $375$351

$325$317

$327

$302

$277

$257

$2.4

$26.8

$52.7 $60.6$50.6

$75.6

$100.6

$120.6

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) Cumulative Impact = $489.9M4

Funding History & Projection by MAU(FY14-FY22 UGF Millions*)

Notes: Major Administrative Unit (MAU);

Includes impact of FY20 & FY21 RSA between SW and UAS

$93.0

$126.4

$19.7 $17.9

-31.5%$42.7

-30.7%$55.9

-34.7%$10.4

-39.1%$11.5

UA Anchorage UA Fairbanks UA Southeast Statewide

FY22 Unrestricted General Funds (UGF) Total UGF Reduction

5

Enrollment history by MAU

20,559 20,699 19,825 19,629

18,649 18,116 17,962

17,267 16,530

14,986

11,034 11,149 10,799 10,214 9,992 9,870 9,330

8,720 8,336 8,207

3,963 4,043 3,765 3,644 3,700 3,396 2,891 2,676 2,561 2,547

34,480 34,983

33,581 32,696

31,522

30,496

29,171

27,823 26,641

24,943

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

UA Fall Headcount

Anchorage Fairbanks Southeast System

2010-2019

Change # %

System (9,537) -27.7%

UAA (5,573) -27.1%

UAF (2,827) -25.6%

UAS (1,416) -35.7%

6

Enrollment and related revenues continue to decline

?FUTURE

● State economy

in decline

● Population loss

● Program

reductions

● Further decline

in enrollment

● Further decline

in tuition

revenue

Projections based on: annual enrollment decrease 10% per year; and tuition and fee revenue reduction 5% in FY20, 10% in FY21 and FY22

7

Filling the gap will require major change

$111.1

$92.6

$21.8 $21.2

$10.8$7.5 $6.3 $4.8 $4.6 $4.6 $2.7 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.0 $1.3 $1.2 $1.1 $1.0 $0.6

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

$120.0

FY20 Unrestricted General Funds

Note: excludes impact of FY20 RSA between SW and UAS8

For FY21, the university seeks your approval of the FY21 budget FY21 BUDGET IMPACTS $M

FY21 Base Funds Impacts

What is the Gap we need to fill?

Unrestricted general fund (UGF) reductions $25.0 Reduction based on Compact Agreement

1% general market compensation adjustment 3.9 Required by CBAs

Specific market compensation adjustment 3.3 On hold. This adjustment is part of a three year plan to bring employees up to 90% of the median market rate

Base gap from prior fiscal years 7.5

Proposed debt service refinance/restructure (3.4) The proposed debt service refinance also frees up $12.6M for debt service/BOR strategic reserve

FY21 Base Budget Impact $33.0

How will the Gap be filled?

MAU Specified base reductions $28.9

MAU reductions in facility maintenance 4.1 Reduces planned investment in facility maintenance below recommended levels

FY21 Base Gap to Fill 0

FY21 COVID Projected Impacts

Auxiliary deficits$7.4 Universities are developing plans to reduce FY21 Auxiliary deficits through expenditure reductions and/or rate increases.

CARES Act funding will mitigate FY20 losses that carryforward

Tuition and fee revenue reduction 13.2 -10% estimate (trend is -5%; current fall 2020 tuition and fee projection as of 5/25/2020 is -16%)

Decline in interest income 2.7

Decline in indirect cost recovery 1.5

FY21 COVID Projected Impacts $24.8 Does not include additional government support program funds that may be received

One time funds ($24.8) BOR budget approval includes use of one-time funds for projected COVID impact

FY21 Remaining Gap to Fill 09

FY21 requires use of one-time funds (limiting availability for FY22)

ONE-TIME FUNDSProjected 6/30/2020

(2% of expenses)

“Floor” = Target6/30/2022

(4% of expenses) Available above floor

Unreserved Fund Balance

UAA $14.3 $11.3 $3.0

UAF 9.8 13.9 0.0

UAS 2.8 2.5 0.3

SW 10.0 1.9 8.1

$36.9 $29.6 $11.4

Debt Service Reserve Funds

UAA $2.3 $1.2 $1.1

UAF 24.0 12.0 12.0

UAS 0.5 0.3 0.2

SW 0.2 0.1 0.1

$27.0 $13.6 $13.4

One-time funds “available” $24.8

10

For FY22, the projected gap is from $11.3M-$36.3M*FY22 BUDGET IMPACTS $M

FY22 Base Funds Impacts

Unrestricted general fund reductions $20.0 Reduction based on Compact Agreement

Specific market compensation adjustment 3.2 On hold. This adjustment is part of a three-year plan to bring employees up to 90% of the median market rate

FY22 Base Budget Impact $20.0

Specified base reductions $1.7

FY22 Base Gap to Fill $18.3

FY22 COVID & Other Projected Impacts

Tuition and fee revenue reduction $13.1 -10% estimate; does not include impact of potential tuition increase in FY22

Decline in interest income 0.8

Adjust UFB level to new 4% target level 4.1

FY22 COVID & Other Projected Impacts $18.0 Does not include additional government support program funds that may be received

FY22 Budget Gap (not including unspecified reductions) $36.3

Unspecified reductions $25.0 These reduction targets have been set, but not specifically identified

FY22 Minimum Budget Gap (including unspecified reductions) $11.3

*The gap may vary within (and possibly exceed) the range depending on:1. whether FY21 and FY22 reductions are fully realized2. enrollment and tuition rate3. state funding

11

The need for action is clear ● 2012 Enrollment begins to decline (part of national trend)

● 2015 State funding cuts begin

● 2016-17 Strategic Pathways identifies options for improvement, incremental decisions made

● 2019 State funding cut with veto was 41%

● Declaration of exigency, subsequently withdrawn

● Consideration of single accreditation encouraged by legislature and BOR Task Force; BOR decided

against pending UAF reaffirmation of accreditation in FY21

● State cut partially mitigated through Compact Agreement (21% over 3 years)

● BOR direction for university-led program reviews with FY21 & FY22 targets

● 2020 Current state funding cut is 21% over 3 years

● Universities are actively working to increase enrollment against strong headwinds● MAUs are implementing administrative reductions

● University-led program reviews made progress and primarily address FY21

● Lengthy notice periods and other transition processes require specific action now for FY22● Unforeseen COVID impacts magnify underlying fiscal challenges

○ Response cost; federal and state aid do not cover costs○ Negative impact on revenue from enrollment, tuition, investment earnings, research○ Alaska economic challenges: oil, tourism, fishing, investment earnings○ State funding, philanthropy at risk

● BOR Audit Committee directs president to work with chancellors to review options 12







13

Audit Committee direction

The Audit Committee directs the president, in conjunction with the UA leadership team including the chancellors, to provide options for transformational change at the University of Alaska, including additional academic and administrative integration, revision of the budget allocation model, and structural changes, including mergers, closures, and changes of mission, for consideration during the Board of Regents’ June 2020 meeting.

This motion is effective May 13, 2020.

14

The expedited preliminary review processMay 11-15 May 18-22 May 25-29 June 1-June 5

Board of Regents ✓ 5/13 Audit Committee✓ 5/13 ASA Committee

✓ 5/26 Public Testimony✓ 5/27 Ad Hoc Title IX✓ 5/28 ASA Committee✓ 5/28 Facilities Committee✓ 5/29 Audit Committee✓ 5/29 Governance Committee✓ 5/29 Post Full Board materials

• 6/2 Public Testimony• 6/4-5 Full Board

Executive Council ✓ 5/14 Meet to (1) review / approve draft workplan; (2) Identify and describe options and criteria

✓ 5/19 Discuss and draft options✓ 5/22 EC reviews assigned options

✓ 5/26 Considers academic and administration reviews from AC and BC; reviews draft BOR presentation

✓ 5/28 Review revised draft BOR presentation

✓ 5/29 Discuss input and finalize BOR presentation

Academics ✓ 5/14 VPASR heads up email to NWCCU

✓ 5/15 Letter to NWCCU

✓ 5/20-21 AC reviews assigned options, provides to EC on 5/22

✓ TBD Meeting with NWCCU, VPASR, provosts, and ALOs

✓ 5/27 AC reviews draft BOR presentation

• TBD Meeting with NWCCU, provosts, and ALOs

Administration ✓ 5/20-21 BC reviews assigned options, provides to EC on 5/22

✓ 5/27 BC reviews draft BOR presentation

Governance ✓ 5/13 VPASR heads up email to system governance leaders

✓ 5/14 P meet with SGC

✓ 5/21 P discusses options with SGC✓ TBD Cs discuss options with institution

level governance groups

✓ 5/28 P get input on draft BOR presentation from SGC

✓ TBD Cs get input on draft BOR presentation from institution level governance groups

Communications ✓ 5/13 P email to UA community✓ 5/14 Cs email to universities

✓ 5/21 P email to UA community✓ TBD Cs communication

✓ 5/29 P email to UA community✓ TBD Cs communication

• TBD P email to UA community• TBD Cs communication

P: PresidentCs: ChancellorsALOs: Accreditation Liaison Officers

SGC: System Governance CouncilNWCCU: Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities

AC: Academic CouncilBC: Business Council 15







16

The options considered for preliminary review*Additional academic and administrative

integrationRevision of budget allocation model Structural change, e.g., mergers, closures,

changes of mission

Academic (led by VPASR, Academic Council)1. Complete implementation of teacher

education program consolidation2. Set single definition of lecture/course hour

(50 or 60 minutes, one or the other)3. Consolidate and redesign common GERs4. Increase coordination of curriculum and

faculty and staff resources in similar programs across UA

5. Consolidate duplicative academic units6. Develop university wide strategic plan for

eLearning

Administrative (led by VPUR, Business Council)1. Devolve Information Technology services

from Statewide to universities2. Consolidate Information Technology

services in Statewide3. Assign responsibility for administrative

services to a university4. Increase cost-effective outsourcing5. Reduce facility footprint6. Expand “work from home” from pre-COVID

1. Allow tuition differentiation among universities, between university and CTE programs, between in-person and on-line, and between in-state and out-of-state

2. Develop budget allocation formula weighted for mission, enrollment, disciplines, and degrees offered

3. Allocate UGF for expenses in accordance with peer ratios

Structural (led by President, Executive Council)1. Merge community campuses into UAS2. Merge UAS into UAA and/or UAF, while

preserving access and other values 3. Re-envision partnerships with selected

community campuses/facilities, including possible merger and/or transfer to local entity

*Options for preliminary review are identified in bold face. They were selected based on several factors, including:

1. UGF cost savings potential2. Ability to ensure student

access/affordability3. Opportunity to support mission focus4. Time/ease of implementation 5. Additional considerations, e.g., on-line

alternativesOther options, including options to be identified later, will be considered for review at a future time. 17

Why not other options?• Cut UA System Office

• Constitutional, legal, and financial responsibilities• Provides wide variety of necessary non-duplicated

functions (governance and administrative services) • Smaller share of total expenses than comparable

system offices

• Single accreditation• Reviewed last year and suspended to ensure UAF

reaffirmation of accreditation in FY21• Large cost savings potential from reducing

organizational units and personnel to comparable peer levels

• High degree of disruption and high institutional accreditation risk

• Mandatory salary cuts / furloughs• Administrators already cut, small number of

people results in small savings• Union contract does not allow, so unless union

agrees, no general program recommended

• Combine SW and MAU leadership positions• They are different roles• Cost savings possible, though minor

• Cut athletics at UAA and UAF• Small share of overall expenses; already being cut• High community relations value and philanthropy

opportunity

• Close community campuses• Small share of total expenses• Large impact on local communities• Valuable access point for higher education• Opportunity to consider learning centers and

stronger local partnerships

• Merge duplicative academic units• Consistent with option currently under review to

increase inter-university coordination• Substantial savings could be realized

• Allocate budget according to peer ratio benchmarks

• Substantial reductions possible• This option will be considered on its own and in

conjunction with increased coordination among similar academic programs across UA

• Would likely require program reviews and lengthy notice periods

18





4. The preliminary reviews were conducted by appropriate UA council (Academic Council, Business Council, Executive Council) and included input from shared governance


19

The options were reviewed by systemwide councils

Academic Council Business Council Executive Council

Steve Atwater, Exec. Dean, AKCOE, UAS

Heather Batchelder, Faculty Alliance, UAS

Karen Carey, Provost, UAS

Teri Cothren, AVP Workforce Programs, UA

Jeff Jessee, V. Provost of Health Programs, UAA

Gokhan Karahan, Faculty Alliance, UAA

Nettie Labelle-Hamer, VC Research, UAF

Paul Layer, VPASR, UA

Julie Maier, Faculty Alliance, UAF

Saichi Oba, AVP Student Affairs, UA

Anupma Prakash, Provost, UAF

Priscilla Schulte, Ketchikan Campus Director, UAS

John Stalvey, Provost, UAA

• Michael Ciri, VCAS, UAS

• Carrie Couey, Director Of Admin Services, UAA

• Myron Dosch, CFO, UA, council chair

• John Hebard, Chief Procurement Officer, UA

• Mark Kondrak, CITO, UA

• John Moore, Staff Governance, UAA

• Steve Patin, CHRO, UA

• Nikki Pittman, Chief Audit Executive, UA

• Julie Queen, VCAS, UAF

• Michelle Rizk, VPUR, UA

• Bruce Schultz, acting/interim VCAS, UAA

• Gordon Williams, Prof of Mathematics, UAF

Rick Caulfield, Chancellor, UAS

Jim Johnsen, President, UA

Michelle Rizk, VPUR, UA

Paul Layer, VPASR, UA

Cathy Sandeen, Chancellor, UAA

Dan White, Chancellor, UAF

20

The councils reviewed the options

• Using these criteria:• UGF cost savings (estimated)• Student access and affordability • Mission focus• Timeliness/Ease of implementation • Additional considerations

• Process simplification• Availability of new/alternative instructional technologies, e.g., on-line• Responsiveness to local/community/regional needs• Quality

• So the Board may consider whether to:• Continue review at a more detailed level for future consideration• Discontinue review• Take action

21

Administrative Options

Devolve Information Technology

Consolidate Information Technology

Summary of Analysis

• Scope of IT Services and functions applicable for consolidation or devolving are not easily defined or identifiable in time available

• IT is an under-resourced area, with limited UGF savings potential• Neither consolidating IT nor devolving wholesale may be the best

option; rather a hybrid where some functions are centralized and some devolved

• Standardization or optimization of IT processes and technology would create efficiencies and reduce overall cost

• Additional investment to respond to alternative delivery needs and remote work may be necessary (e.g. COVID impact)

• IT is a critical factor for UA transformation, investment will be needed• IT structural decision should be informed by UA structural decisions• All universities require an equitable voice in IT planning/strategy

regardless of the structure 23

Current State

● IT is generally under-resourced at UA (see NCHEMS Cost Analysis, March 11, 2020)● UA is already centralized for enterprise administrative systems and wide area

networks● IT architecture is coordinated / standardized among universities and statewide● Some processes are non-standard, adding complexity and cost● UA benefits from some shared services where each university provides non-

duplicated services to the rest of the system● UA benefits from coordinated software licensing procurement● UA is decentralized for distributed technologies such as telephones, desktop

support, classroom support and academic labs● UA is decentralized for distributed hardware purchases and specialized academic

technologies● UAF IT is a merged organization with UA OIT (shared staffing and functions)● UAA IT and UAS IT are separate structures● IT Council exists to discuss high-level IT issues and strategy● Transformation readiness assessment currently underway

24

Devolve IT services from Statewide to universitiesUGF cost savings (est’d) Student access and

affordability

Mission focus Timeliness/ease of

implementation

Additional

considerations

• Insufficient time to reliably estimate UGF cost savings

• Some UGF savings possible, but IT function is largely under-resourced

• Overall operating expense of multiple, disparate “enterprise” systems would increase cost

• Consideration of cost drivers needed, e.g. infrastructure, cloud, applications, staff, telephony

• Avoids cost where universities do not need some UA system level products or process

• Cost savings from reduced structural complexity that come from “all three must agree” philosophy

• May need to maintain some functions at UA level where leveraged/cost benefits exist, e.g. UA Network, IT Security

• If enterprise systems separated, one time investment needed to transition universities to standing up smaller, regionally focused, systems

• Student access could be improved through local systems/nimble response and ability to easily enhance systems at each university

• Seamless student experience *across* universities likely to be challenged by separate systems and processes where students take courses from or are interested in admission to multiple institutions

• Student affordability not impacted substantially unless fees are altered (not necessarily expected)

• Solutions for students tailored to local institutional academic needs and student academic outcomes

• May improve responsiveness to university missions and program needs, on a faster timeline - keeps up with speed of student needs and university business

• May make access to decision-making about systems and services closer to client/user base

• Analysis of UA functions at SW OIT needed to determine what is in-scope to devolve to university level

• Timeline increases initially if enterprise systems are devolved, but longer term benefits may exist at university level after the change

• Potentially retain shared items such as networking services and systemwide licensing

• Management and maintenance of enterprise systems would need to be determined - are enterprise systems retained?

• Separate enterprise systems would result in the need to coordinate for financial reporting purposes and possibly certain non-financial reporting; may complicate reporting on student matters if data are contained within systems separated by university (cross-MAU students). Would need to establish UA reporting requirements to mitigate.

Lead: VPURCouncil: Business Council

25

Consolidate IT services in Statewide

UGF cost savings

(est’d)

Student access and

affordability


implementation

Additional

considerations

• Insufficient time to analyze and reliably estimate UGF cost savings

• Purchasing power of central unit could reduce licensing and service costs

• Centralizing telephony may yield savings

• Standardization of administrative systems and methods would improve effectiveness

• Potential to improve seamless student experience across UA if responsive to input from universities

• No estimated impact on student affordability

• Increased efficiency with implementation of systems or efforts to streamline the student experience

• “Business Partner” model to maintain ability for student-facing services to adopt platforms at local level

• MUST maintain student technology fees at university level to ensure engagement from UA for planning and approval prior to expenditure of funds

• Removes IT from the academic reporting chain; IT planning is critical to accreditation. A strong process for university engagement would be needed, connected to university managed funding.

• Architectural simplification and process streamlining enables innovation and transformation in value-add /competitively differentiating areas

• “Business Partner” model to sustain responsiveness to university missions and programs could be challenged without strong shared ownership of the service

• Timelines vary based on how consolidation is defined, if by function or if merely change in reporting lines - more analysis is needed

• UAF is merged with SW OIT currently; UAA and UAS IT would need to be considered

• Increase in opportunities to improve expertise resilience by retaining staffing duplication across the system vs. existing situation where some universities or UA System have only a single expert

• Improve opportunities to identify redundancies and seek economies of scale for purchases

• Service level matrix in relation to customer service; service quality must be high

• Vendor management could be streamlined, which could help UA with security and privacy

Lead: VPURCouncil: Business Council

26

Academic Options

Set single definition of lecture/course hour (50 or 60 minutes, one or the other)

Consolidate and redesign common GERs

Increase coordination of curriculum and faculty and staff resources in similar programs across UA

Current State• Set single definition of lecture/course hour (50 or 60 minutes, one or the other)

• UAF and UAS Juneau campus generally have 60 (or 90) minute course blocks, UAA and the UAS Ketchikan and Sitka

campuses generally use 50 (or 75) minute blocks. Note that course blocks do not directly apply to online asynchronous

classes

• 2014 memo from UA President Gamble creating UA Common Calendar Advisory Committee to assess the possibility of

calendar and course block alignment. Report submitted on 2/2015

• Calendars aligned (except for fee payment date), but course blocks still separate

• 2015-2019: UAA, UAF and UAS senates all considered changing to an alternate time, but none voted to change to match

another university and ongoing surveys of faculty show no desire to change

• In 2019 the Committee began to look at aligning course blocks to fit both a 50 and 60 schedule and in 2020 will present a

plan to provide a significant number of possible cross-university class times

• Consolidate and redesign common GERs

• At UAA, only about 50 courses account for more than 75% of GER need

• A faculty led process has aligned GER offerings and transferability across UA. Final committee report in 2019

• UAF moved away from a small number of GER courses (Perspectives of the Human Condition) to align with UAS and

UAA GERs

• “Menu” approach to GERs with many offerings across the system in each BOR GER category

• Across-system Faculty GER Committee remains active

• All three universities have joined the WICHE Interstate Passport

• Increase coordination of curriculum and faculty and staff resources in similar programs across UA

• Strategic Pathways committees for both Arts & Humanities and Natural & Social Sciences recommended additional

collaboration across the system

• Universities have been sharing courses across the system in a limited capacity

• UAF and UAA Philosophy programs share common curriculum through an MOU to maintain BA programs at each

university.

• Mathematics faculty have coordinated curriculum and course numbering

• UAF Chemistry faculty taught synchronous classes in support of the UAA program when it was suspended

• Engineering faculty have shared courses and curriculum28

Set single definition of lecture/clock hour

UGF cost savings

(est’d)

Student access and

affordability


implementation

Additional

considerations

• Minimal direct cost

savings

• Could increase faculty

productivity (and cost

savings) by more

students taking

synchronous online

classes across the

system

• Could simplify

schedules for students

taking classes across

the system

• More classes taught at

one university or

campus to be taken by

students at another

• Reducing contact

hours at UAF or UAS

could impact student

learning outcomes

• Both 50 and 60 minute

comply with US DOE,

NWCCU, and BOR

policy

• With the UA common

calendar, 50 minute

blocs are at the lower

end of the

requirements

• Current academic rigor

(somewhat attributed

to contact hours over

the entire semester) is

consistent with peers

• Would require

change to academic

calendar and

schedule

• Would require some

faculty to modify

course plans to fit

different schedule

• Could take effect Fall

2021

• Transitioning from 50

to 60 minute blocks

might be easier for

faculty (easier to add

content or discussion

time with an

additional 30 minutes

per week than to

take it out of the

lecture time)

• 50 minutes appears to

be more common than

60 minutes across US

but semester lengths

vary.

• There are many

advantages to single

definition of a clock hour,

whether 50 or 60

• Faculty at each

university do not support

changing the current

definition of clock hour.

• Calendar committee has

identified common

course blocks that could

accommodate classes

and time blocks each

day

Lead: VPASRCouncil: Academic

29

Consolidate and redesign common GERs

UGF cost savings

(est’d)

Student access and

affordability


implementation

Additional

considerations

• Larger class sizes,

and fully enrolled

sections

• Reduction in

duplicative low

enrollment sections

• Lower instructional

cost by increasing

student/faculty ratio

to peer levels

• Models at other

universities show

large reduction in

cost and improved

student outcomes (as

reported by National

Center for Academic

Transformation)

• Could reduce student

choice to intro

courses, which may

benefit students in

exploring majors

• May reduce

student/faculty

interaction

• May reduce high

quality faculty

feedback to students

• May reduce retention

of students long term

• Provides opportunity

to expand

competency based

assessment and

credit for prior

learning and

experience

• Could have GER

courses more

focused on the UA

mission with a focus

on Alaska and the

arctic

• Would take a

significant amount of

time. Two to three

years at minimum.

• GERs recently

aligned through

cross-system faculty

committee

• All three universities

are officially

members of the

Interstate passport

system, which is

mapped to current

GERs

• Many students do not

learn well in large-

enrollment online

classes with less

faculty interaction

• Rural Alaska

students might not

have the ability to

receive support in

large online classes


30

Increase coordination of curriculum and faculty and staff resources in similar programs across UA

UGF cost savings

(est’d)

Student access and

affordability


implementation

Additional

considerations

• Initial “up-front” cost

to bring faculty and

staff together to

identify potential

coordination and

curricular alignment

• Moderate savings in

the long run as

curricular gaps in one

program caused by

faculty departure are

filled by faculty at

another university

• Substantial savings

possible if faculty

resources shared

more efficiently

across universities

(up to $9M projected

savings over several

years)

• Potential loss of

unique curriculum

• More options for

students to take

classes from other

universities

• Could allow

universities to retain

programs/majors that

otherwise might need

to be discontinued

• Most direct use of the

expertise of each

faculty member

across more then

one university

• Will take faculty

time, thus needs up

front investment

• Can begin working

immediately,

however

• Some programs are

already engaged in

program

coordination

• Faculty have

proposed some

common course

times consistent with

current clock hour

definitions across the

UA system

• Effective

collaborations

depend on faculty

commitment

• Need a uniform

tuition and fee

sharing policy


31

Summary• Set single definition of lecture/course hour (50 or 60 minutes, one or the other)

• Little to no faculty interest to change current practice

• Minimal to no direct cost savings given the growth in online, asynchronous offerings that don’t depend on course blocks, and the fact that under the current system, (limited) course sharing is taking place. Changing will require staff time to implement

• Ongoing faculty efforts will provide some aligned course blocks for synchronous course delivery in key programs

• Moving from 60 to 50 minutes could impact student learning outcomes for some programs

• Consolidate and redesign common GERs• Potential cost savings if universities reduce the number of small-enrollment courses currently identified as GER approved

• Would focus student choice with a concern that student/faculty interaction with larger, less personal face-to-face and online GER classes

• Current structure has been approved by WICHE Interstate Passport to facilitate student transfer into and out of UAA, UAF and UAS

• System-wide GER committee is tasked with reviewing approved courses for student learning outcomes

• Deans currently have the authority to decide if a low-enrollment GER is offered and faculty senates can evaluate courses for viability

• Extensive experience in other states suggests possibility of substantial cost reduction and improved student experience

• Increase coordination of curriculum and faculty and staff resources in similar programs across UA• There are instances of ongoing “grass roots” collaboration at the faculty or college level

• While coordinating similar degree programs across the system may limit different emphases, they reduce costs and preserve other programs.

• Where these efforts have worked they have produced modest savings due to not refilling vacant faculty lines. In most instances these collaborations are short-term until new hires can be made. Under the current budget situation, this will become more common

• Bringing faculty together to discuss curriculum will need funding

• Online program development is facilitating collaboration, but requires additional eLearning coordination

• Discussion recommended that emphasis be placed on ensuring that there are coordinated pathways from endorsements through certificates, associates, and baccalaureate degrees

• Significant savings possible if faculty resources shared more efficiently across universities 32

Structural Options

Merge community campuses into UAS

Merge UAS into UAA and/or UAF, while preserving access and other values

Current State• Organizational structure of UA is a cost driver (along with low population and other factors)

• Recent analyses show UA has more management (& faculty)/FTE student than peers• Attempts to address, e.g., Strategic Pathways, have shown opportunity and some progress, more is possible

• UA enrollment (Fall headcount) has been declining since 2011• FY2011-19 UA: 27% UAA: 27% UAF: 26% UAS: 36% • Fall 2020* UA: 20% UAA: 21% UAF: 15% UAS: 22% (Fall 2020 projection as of 5/25/20 compared to Fall 2019 projection at same date in 2019)

• Management, faculty and staff reduction rates have lagged declining enrollment*• Management UA: 14% UAA: 20% UAF: 18% UAS: (17%)• Faculty UA: 18% UAA: 19% UAF: 19% UAS: 12%• Staff UA: 17% UAA: 19% UAF: 16% UAS: 23%• All UA: 18% UAA: 19% UAF: 17% UAS: 18% (Includes only regular employees. Source: UA Workforce Reductions, FY15-20)

• Two recent reviews found UA is above peers in faculty and management, ranging from 14% to 24% in faculty and 6% to 40% in management

• Incremental, university-based reductions have been made and will continue, but they are limited to some extent by our structure and differences in fixed cost ratios

• Consideration should be given to structural options, such as merger of community campuses into UAS and merger of UAS into UAA and/or UAF

*Research growth over this period explains a portion of the lag.

34

Merge community campuses into UAS

UGF cost savings (est’d) Student access and affordability

Mission focus Timeliness/ease of implementation

Additional considerations

• Likely increase in cost, especially during transition

• Modest long-term reductions may result through increased program coordination and administrative efficiencies

• Large impact on many community campuses may result in negative enrollment impacts in multiple locations

• Students would have access to on-line programs from all three universities

• Allows UAF and UAA to focus more on respective missions

• Unless UAS becomes a CC, its mission would expand

• UAF’s leading role in tribal management programs would be lost

• Likely a 2 year transition• Serious accreditation

issues for all three universities

• Unresolved issue about whether to include only rural campuses or also large, urban CCs

• Could support collaboration among Alaska Native Serving Institutions

Lead: PresidentCouncil: Executive

35

Merge UAS into UAA and/or UAFUGF cost savings (est’d) Student access and

affordabilityMission focus Timeliness/ease of

implementation Additional considerations

• Variable cost savings depending on extent of program integration

• Modest cost reductions if most faculty and staff retained

• Large cost reductions would require large reductions in faculty and staff

• May reduce student access, depending on extent of integration

• 50% of UAS credit hours already on-line

• Impact can be mitigated with strong on-site student support and academic advisors

• UAS student “teach out” responsibility can largely be met through current UAA and/or UAF programs

• UAS’s mission could fitinto UAA’s and UAF’s

• Opportunity for program expansion in SE from merger with UAF, e.g., fisheries and ocean science, environmental science, mining, and Indigenous Studies

• High synergy between UAS’s on-line programs and UAF’s eCampus

• UAA could continue to provide health programs in Southeast

• Once decision made, 6 months of careful planning and 12 months of implementation; could be completed by end of FY22

• Would use established accreditation “change of control” process with NWCCU

• Very low risk to accreditations of UAA and UAF

• Would need to merge CAEP accreditations for teacher education

• Strong community concerns

• May result in reduced focus, resources on unique needs in SE region

• Potential to increase research and philanthropic revenue in Southeast

• Could support maritime training collaborative among community campuses

• Could support collaboration among Alaska Native Serving Institutions

Lead: PresidentCouncil: Executive

36

Summary• Merger of community campuses into UAS

• Does not yield cost savings; it would likely result in increased costs• May reduce access due to many locations affected by the change• Would enable UAF and UAA to focus their missions; UAS’ would expand• UAS enrollment and revenue would increase; UAA and UAF would decrease• Serious accreditation issues for all three universities

• Merger of UAS into UAF and/or UAA • Cost savings could be low or high, depending on degree of integration (current UGF of $23.1M)• Would be disruptive to UAS itself; risk to long-time relationships with communities and employers• Large cost savings would require large reductions in faculty and staff, and changes in traditional learning model• Requires careful planning to ensure strong support for student interests and regional needs • Impact on students can be mitigated due to high % of on-line students now and availability of like programs from

UAA and UAF in person and on-line• Potential opportunities for expansion in Southeast, e.g.:

• Substantial reductions at UAA and UAF still needed• Could us established NWCCU “change of control” process

• Fisheries and Ocean Sciences• Management• Health Research and Education• Environmental Research and Education• Mine Training

• Indigenous Studies• Dual Enrollment with K-12• Teacher Education• Philanthropic and grant revenue

37




3. Numerous options were suggested for review; given the short period of time available, a small number were selected



38

Board discussion

Of the options included in this preliminary review, which should be:

• Given additional, deeper consideration?

• Set aside?

• Acted upon?

For other options identified here and yet to be suggested, which should be:

• Given a preliminary review?

• Set aside?

• Acted upon?

39

Other options for review*Additional academic and administrative

integrationRevision of budget allocation model Structural change, e.g., mergers, closures,

changes of mission

Academic (led by VPASR, Academic Council)1. Complete implementation of teacher

education program consolidation2. Set single definition of lecture/course hour

(50 or 60 minutes, one or the other)3. Consolidate and redesign common GERs4. Increase coordination of curriculum and

faculty and staff resources in similar programs across UA

5. Consolidate duplicative academic units6. Develop university wide strategic plan for

eLearning

Administrative (led by VPUR, Business Council)1. Devolve Information Technology services

from Statewide to universities2. Consolidate Information Technology services

in Statewide3. Assign responsibility for administrative

services to a university4. Increase cost-effective outsourcing5. Reduce facility footprint6. Expand “work from home” from pre-COVID

1. Allow tuition differentiation among universities, between university and CTE programs, between in-person and on-line, and between in-state and out-of-state

2. Develop budget allocation formula weighted for mission, enrollment, disciplines, and degrees offered

3. Allocate UGF for expenses in accordance with peer ratios

Structural (led by President, Executive Council)1. Merge community campuses into UAS2. Merge UAS into UAA and/or UAF, while

preserving access and other values 3. Re-envision partnerships with selected

community campuses/facilities, including possible merger and/or transfer to local entity

*Options for potential future review are identified in bold face. These and other options, including those yet to be identified, may be considered for review at a future time.

40

university of alaska board of regents transformation...2. in response, the bor audit committee...

Documents